Burial chambers

GogLais

Ad Honorem
Sep 2013
5,214
Wirral
#1
I spent a day in the rain yesterday visiting a few burial chambers in Anglesey. Most of them had the stones exposed but the last one, Bryn Celli Ddu, has an earth mound over it. I understand that most, if not all, were originally covered. The exposed stones do look very impressive but a simpler and easier solution could have been adopted if their purpose was simply to create a void in the mound. Some of the stones weigh several tonnes. Any thoughts from anyone regarding this? Maybe the stones weren’t covered initially?
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
25,859
Italy, Lago Maggiore
#2
I spent a day in the rain yesterday visiting a few burial chambers in Anglesey. Most of them had the stones exposed but the last one, Bryn Celli Ddu, has an earth mound over it. I understand that most, if not all, were originally covered. The exposed stones do look very impressive but a simpler and easier solution could have been adopted if their purpose was simply to create a void in the mound. Some of the stones weigh several tonnes. Any thoughts from anyone regarding this? Maybe the stones weren’t covered initially?
I see now this thread.

Bryn Celli Ddu is really a typical burial site of the Megalithic cultures around Europe. It's really easy to note the similarities with one of the most important Megalithic sites: Newgrange in Ireland. Starting from this similarity I would wonder if there is an eviden alignment of the entrance and the internal chamber with a meaningful object in the sky. The doctrine of archaeoastronomy in the last decades has developed accurate methods to analyse a site like that. About it, it seems that its main alignment was solar, at the solstice of summer [while at Newgrange there is a debate about an alignment also with Venus and Sirius].

About this, we should keep in mind that archaeoastronomy is a scientific doctrine, so that to the "obvious" objects [Sun, Moon, Sirius, Venus, the stars around the celestial North Pole] it's not licit to add this or that star [or planet] if there are no cultural evidences that the local populations really expressed an interest for it. You can hear around about the most curious alignments. But ...

1. As said the target object in the sky has to be naturally evident.
2. If not naturally evident, cultural evidences that they noted it must exist.
3. The alignment has to be evident as well.
Regarding this point we are in troubles: megaliths had irregular shapes, so that in sites with enough stones you can find alignment with a lot of stars [Deneb is a kind of fashion].
But is this licit? Scientifically that's not licit.
 

Similar History Discussions